Official Box Office Discussion Thread

[Legion1979]

Minions transcends all reason. People love those little yellow shits and they're part of the cultural zeitgeist in a way few modern pop culture characters are. Adults saw it, teenagers saw it, kids saw, everyone saw it.

Apart from that, I get the distinct impression that people don't think kids films (even Disney's) are worth going to a theater for, especially not if they're going to be streaming shortly after their theatrical releases.

[Voyager]

I actually quite liked Minions 2

[Chrispy_G]

So, the League of Super-Pets comes out this weekend. If it underwhelms, can we conclude that the Superhero Run is indeed losing steam?

For me, the performance of Super Pets is irrelevant to that discussion. Or rather, not the center of it.

We need to look no further than the heaviest of hitters to see that...even though we can argue that the genre isn't tanking, it is without a doubt, 100% beyond its peak...and will not return there.

I'm going to draw a few comparisons here for reference, and consider this: In ANY of these situations, if the 'new' movie was matching or surpassing the older film...it would certainly be used as an argument for the genre thriving. If Marvel/DC event movie 2022 was destroying the Box Office of Marvel/DC event movie 2013, 2015, 2018 then people would not hesitate to point it out and say "Look, these movies are just as big as ever, maybe bigger!"....so if it would be fair to use "new films are bigger than old films = Marvel more popular than ever" then using evidence to the contrary should be just as valid.

The Avengers - 2012 - $1.5 Billion - The MCU blows up, the film has a Thanos tease and stars Iron Man, but doesn't go a long way towards being a specific set-up for any particular "next film" in the MCU. It certainly wasn't trying to overtly promote Iron Man 3 or Thor 2 or anything.

Iron Man 3 - May 2013 - $1.2 Billion - Just by being "Iron Man 3" and riding the high of The Avengers, Iron Man 3 is able to retain a huge portion of the Avengers audience. An Iron Man solo film making TWICE as much as Iron Man 2 and only $300M less than The Avengers shows how much the latter raised the profile and love of the MCU as a whole.

Iron Man 3 retained basically 4/5ths of the Avengers global audience. Worth noting is that Iron Man 3 WAS still quite divisive at the time and to this day is considered a bit of an odd letdown with a lame twist by a lot of the fandom.

Add on 9 years of ticket price inflation (which basically just means, when the numbers decline, the gap is even wider as ticket prices are now higher than ever, especially compared to films that are basically a decade old)

Preamble - Black Widow, Shang Chi, and Eternals all hover right around that $400M mark and are basically all non-starters. Defenders blame the lockdowns for dragging every movie down.

Godzilla vs Kong had an even more limiting "day and date streaming" release than Black Widow. GvK was free with a subscription to HBOMax, while Black Widow was a premium purchase on top of a Disney+ subscription. Yet GvK pulled in something like $100M more at the global Box Office.

Fast 9, Venom 2 and No Time to Die had no problems making much more money than the Phase 4 MCU films despite being released in the same section of the calendar as them. The Phase 4 films all struggled to beat the lowest performers of the MCU globally.

Spider-Man: No Way Home - December 2021 - $1.9 Billion - BIGGER than any film since Endgame. Bigger than the original Avengers, bigger than any Spider-Man film. Used as a big fat "See, the MCU is as big and strong as ever, audiences are ready to go back to theaters, superhero fatigue doesn't exist" example. But time has proven it to be more of an exception than the rule.

The film used 20 years of Spider-Man film history as the ultimate hype machine, and the film itself was quite good and devoid of the usual poison pills that spoil the fun for modern blockbusters. People loved it.

Doctor Strange was featured prominently, the multiverse concept was the entire basis of the plot for the film, and the post-credits scene was a debut trailer for Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. Marvel and Disney were trying to do the DEFINITION of "striking while the iron was hot" with this film and using it to prop up and generate massive hype for Doctor Strange. They were doing everything they could to piggyback on its success and try to replicate a similar worldwide box office gross. They were hoping to retain as much of the No Way Home audience as possible.

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness - May 2022 - $950 Million - After a huge opening of over $450M worldwide basically collapsed afterward, falling short of $1B worldwide.

Doctor Strange MoM retained basically 50% of the global audience of Spider-Man: No Way Home.

Compare that to the 4/5th retention of viewers from The Avengers to Iron Man 3.

One golden argument said something along the lines of: "we can't judge Doctor Strange compared to Iron Man 3 or No Way Home, we have to judge it compared to the first Doctor Strange with the added value of Doctor Strange appearing in big movies like Infinity War, Endgame, and No Way Home since his first film, so it had a good increase" and argued that Thor: Love and Thunder must then be measured by the same token: Thor: Ragnarok + added shine from Infinity War and Endgame.

Well we have those results

Thor: Ragnarok - 2017 - $854 Million
Thor: Love and Thunder - 2022 - $660M est and will not make much beyond $700M worldwide

This is after Ragnarok, Infinity War, and Endgame were apparently beloved and did so much to raise Thor's profile. This is with the Guardians of the Galaxy being used in every trailer and TV spot. This is with all of the 'Natalie Portman back as Jane becoming Lady Thor' "hype" that was apparently generated. With all of the "Christian Bale as an awesome villain in the MCU" hype. With all of the "Taika Waititi saved Thor and is perfect for the character" hype. This is after a $302M worldwide opening.

It will finish with, optimistically on the high end, $750M which is $100M less than Ragnarok's total.

The point of the matter here isn't: "MCU used to be huge and massive and now it is in the toilet"...it is simply this: Decline. Decline that will not be reversed, only slowed at best. Once large portions of a viewership start to jump off of an ongoing series, it is hard to bring them back.

Does Black Panther: Wakanda Forever have a hope of reaching $1.3 Billion worldwide? Does The Marvels have a hope of reaching $1.1 Billion worldwide? Time will tell, but the trend isn't optimistic at this point.

And this is NOT unique to Marvel

The Batman had a lack of competition, a huge opening, and almost universal praise.

The Dark Knight - 2008 - $1.0 Billion
The Batman - 2022 - $770 Million

Without factoring in increasing ticket prices, that's basically 77% of the business...when you DO factor in 14 years of ticket price inflation, the shrinkage of the audience is fairly sizable.

Again, it isn't an overnight implosion of the genre, it isn't a night and day difference of "$2 Billion one day, $200M the next". Still, the trend continues: Decline, however slow, decline.

[Legion1979]

Lotta words when you could have just said "Superhero movies aren't doing as well as their $2B peak."

Again, there's this weird sense of glee in your posts. Are you enjoying this?

[Greyshot151]

Again, it isn't an overnight implosion of the genre, it isn't a night and day difference of "$2 Billion one day, $200M the next". Still, the trend continues: Decline, however slow, decline.

I agree with you on a decline, specifically with Marvel, but I think that there are 2 factors not currently taken into consideration:

1) Oversaturation - Marvel not only has Movies but shows and excluding quality, I think Disney factored in that getting people hooked onto their service was worth the trade off in movie sales. Infact, its not really a trade off at all.

On average for 2022 there are 130 million subscribers to Disney plus per month, worldwide (and its still increasing). Now there are bundles and other free month packages with the most basic starting at $7.99, but lets say Disney gets $5 of profit per subscriber per month (If anyone has actual data, please let me know). That is 7.8 Billion, directly to them, for the year. Now, Marvel is a major tentpole of the service, so them pumping out extra shows and shortening their lifespans in theaters/letting their audience watch the movies pretty quickly on their service I think is a trade off that they don't mind having. Disney Plus is pure profit for them. Movie Theaters require a lot of pie slicing when it comes to profits.

2) Quality/direction - This one has been noticeable. Whether it be DC or Marvel, quality of the superhero genre hasn't been assured. In the past, Marvel films were getting to the point where each successive film was great, or if there was just an okay film, the next one was great. Cap 3, Guardians 2, Thor 3, Spiderman, Avengers Infinity War, Black Panther. Those films, whether individually likeable or not, were hits for mass audiences and built off the next to excite audiences for the future. Phase 4, excluding maybe Shang-Chi and Spiderman, never reached those highs (At least for me). And while I'll go to bat for Wandavision, Loki, and maybe Moon Knight, the hits haven't been as high so there is naturally less excitement, especially since for a long time, no one had an end game for where Marvel was going.

Now, I'd rather see 20 films in the Monsterverse than Marvel, but I'd say keep an eye out for Marvel over the next year. History is ever changing, and what may seem like a decline can actually just be the slope for a rebound no one expected.

[Chrispy_G]

Again, it isn't an overnight implosion of the genre, it isn't a night and day difference of "$2 Billion one day, $200M the next". Still, the trend continues: Decline, however slow, decline.

I agree with you on a decline, specifically with Marvel, but I think that there are 2 factors not currently taken into consideration:

1) Oversaturation - Marvel not only has Movies but shows and excluding quality, I think Disney factored in that getting people hooked onto their service was worth the trade off in movie sales. Infact, its not really a trade off at all.

On average for 2022 there are 130 million subscribers to Disney plus per month, worldwide (and its still increasing). Now there are bundles and other free month packages with the most basic starting at $7.99, but lets say Disney gets $5 of profit per subscriber per month (If anyone has actual data, please let me know). That is 7.8 Billion, directly to them, for the year. Now, Marvel is a major tentpole of the service, so them pumping out extra shows and shortening their lifespans in theaters/letting their audience watch the movies pretty quickly on their service I think is a trade off that they don't mind having. Disney Plus is pure profit for them. Movie Theaters require a lot of pie slicing when it comes to profits.

It is worth noting that Disney+ was never projected to be profitable until 2024 or 2025, and that is on the optimistic end if they hit all of their subscriber projections.

I've heard that a big part of the growth of their subscriber base came from India and "Hot Star" where they were almost always making less than $1 per subscription. Now, that isn't half of their subscriber base or anything but from what I understand it is a good chunk.

Without turning this into a Disney+ thread because I don't have much interest in it...but from what I hear and read Disney+ is not yet the stream of profit it is often made out to be. It's development and launch was a huge investment that was not expected to be profitable for the first 5 years or so...and it came right on the heels of Disnney over-paying for Fox in a bidding war with Universal. Universal was going to get it for the $55B range and Disney ended up paying over $70B for it. I don't know if the libraries of Fox IP have really brought $70+Billion in added value to Disney.

But that's a big talk for some kind of dedicated Disney thread that I don't care enough about to make.

Back on topic, Nope didn't hold well but it avoided what could have been a massive collapse.

Front loaded, R rated, 2 hour "thriller billed as a horror movie" that didn't seem to please many of our viewers....the drop could have been devastating. A 58% drop isn't good...but it could have been a lot worse.

That's the benefit of a lack of direct competition.

[JAGzilla]

Just to toss out an anecdote, my brother and sister saw NOPE in IMAX yesterday, and spent the rest of the night raving about how great it was. They're not too easily pleased, either, and they're prepared to march me to the theater at gunpoint to make me see it on my off day. So... maybe word of mouth like that will help give this thing some longevity.

[Chrispy_G]

Just to toss out an anecdote, my brother and sister saw NOPE in IMAX yesterday, and spent the rest of the night raving about how great it was. They're not too easily pleased, either, and they're prepared to march me to the theater at gunpoint to make me see it on my off day. So... maybe word of mouth like that will help give this thing some longevity.

Might be. Full disclosure, my theater is in a predominately black area. It is no lie to say that films like Nope are our films and consistently over-index with us and our market.

Which was why it was odd to see it kind of implode at our location in particular. People came out really dragging the movie. Nationally it dropped 60% but with our location it was quite a bit more

But our market isn't everyone. As you said, plenty are loving this. Top Gun performed terribly our first weekend and then built up and held up over time. Its all unique.

[H-Man]

This weekend, Dragon Ball Super: Super Hero took the no. 1 spot with 20 million, more than doubling Dragon Ball: Evolution's entire US-Canada run. It's also the first time an anime film has taken #1 for its first weekend since the first Pokémon film*.

* - Demon Slayer took 2nd place on its first weekend and 1st place on its second weekend.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmende ... 3cf77e1e40

[H-Man]

From my FB:

2023 has been a generally disappointing, and sometimes outright disastrous, year for series, franchises and studios generally known for being profitable.

For instance:

The Little Mermaid made 569 million dollars worldwide on a nearly 300 million budget. The 2.5 multiplier suggests a WW box office of 750 million to break even.

Elemental from Pixar had a disappointing debut but good legs, barely reaching the break-even point 496 million. Still a disappointment for Pixar.

Wish from Disney Studios is shaping up to be an ignominous failure, having made 107 so far on an almost-200 million budget, with a 500 million break-even point.

The DCU continues its downward spiral, with the Shazam! sequel and The Blue Beetle earning their budget back at the WW box office, but falling short of their break-even points.

The Expendables series has not been a HUGE success, have been profitable enough for four films. Expend4ables, however, was a massive flop.

The Mission Impossible series has always been a reliable money-maker. Dead Reckoning Part 1 cost 100 million more to make than Fallout, but made 200 million less WW than its predecessor. Apparently, the Sound of Freedom made more Stateside than this.

The Fast/Furious franchise has been a license to print money since the fourth film. Fast X cost a whopping 340 million to produce, but fell far short of the 2.5 multiplier to break even.

The Indiana Jones franchise ended on a whimper with Dial of Destiny, which barely made its budget back, but didn't come close to the 2.5 multiplier.

The MCU has also been spiraling downward, reaching its nadir (money-wise) with The Marvels, now officially the lowest-grossing film in the universe, losing to even The Incredible Hulk.

In fact, the only established properties that emerged unscathed this year are John Wick and Godzilla.

Discuss.

[LSD Jellyfish]

I mean, it's pretty obvious right? The pandemic happened and everything shifted to streaming. People got used to that and realized it might not be such an attractive idea to go out and see movies in theaters when they can wait for a home release later. Couple that with increasing inflation and cost of living, and people are much more selective with what they will go out to see, if at all. A lot of the movies you mention, like Indiana Jones, are alright, but they're nothing you need to see. Who wants to see Wonka? Who wants to see the Little Mermaid? Who wants to see any of these movies?

You, for some reason, don't mention Barbie or The Mario Movie, which made lots of money as well.

[Gigantis]

Who wants to see Wonka?

I actually heard Wonka could actually do pretty well. Most of the people who saw it seem to like it, and its budget is rather low, so as long as it gets steady viewership, it could break even.

[LSD Jellyfish]

Who wants to see Wonka?

I actually heard Wonka could actually do pretty well. Most of the people who saw it seem to like it, and its budget is rather low, so as long as it gets steady viewership, it could break even.

I'm sure it will be fine, and I'm sure the movie is good too. I like the lead actor.

My point was more a rhetorical one. I have no doubt that people will see Wonka and have a fantastic time, but who is really excited for it? The same metric applies to a lot of recent movies that are considered "disappointments".

[H-Man]

You, for some reason, don't mention Barbie or The Mario Movie, which made lots of money as well.

Well, the point of the post was to observe the decline in the popularity of established money-making franchises and trends. This year feels especially precipitous in that regard.

[JAGzilla]

You, for some reason, don't mention Barbie or The Mario Movie, which made lots of money as well.

Well, the point of the post was to observe the decline in the popularity of established money-making franchises and trends. This year feels especially precipitous in that regard.

It does. And it is important to note that both of LSD's examples are 'new' movie franchises, rather than established fixtures like Marvel or Fast/Furious. Obviously Barbie and Mario have gargantuan built in audiences, but they're new to the world of major Hollywood movies. Mario in particular stands out because movies based on video games have a notorious track record for mediocrity and failure. And it was followed up by Five Nights at Freddy's, which made BANK whether critics liked it or not. There might be a shift happening. Less superheroes and milking old franchises, more toy and video game adaptations?

[SpiderZilla]

The pandemic happened and everything shifted to streaming. People got used to that and realized it might not be such an attractive idea to go out and see movies in theaters when they can wait for a home release later. Couple that with increasing inflation and cost of living, and people are much more selective with what they will go out to see, if at all.

I would also add the it’s gotten easier and cheaper to set up a home theater that rivals or even beats the experience at movie theaters. I think that’s why many local theaters have remodeled their auditoriums over the past few years with assigned seating, in-seat dining options, beer and alcohol service, and more comfortable seats — some even installed recliners! They realize that between the home theaters, streaming services, and heck even all the latest food delivery services bringing everything audiences may want for their movie enjoyment to their living rooms with zero effort that the traditional movie theater isn’t as appealing as it once was.

[H-Man]

Argyle took #1 this past weekend with 17.4 million domestic and 16.8 million overseas. A 34 million start doesn't bode well for a 200-million film (The Critical Drinker said the CGI is so bad he wonders where the money went).

The Beekeeper continues to surprise by staying in the Top 3 for its fifth straight week. It's WW total is 122 million on a 25 million budget. Go, Statham!